Denver and the West

Julie Aigner-Clark and Bill Clark, the brains behind the Baby Einstein
videos, finally have the research they've been demanding that they say confirms their
suspicion that the study debunking the benefits of their products was deeply flawed. (Joe Amon, The Denver Post)

Four years, one lawsuit and relentless pestering after a headline-grabbing study slammed their iconic Baby Einstein videos as harmful, Bill Clark and Julie Aigner-Clark have forced the University of Washington to turn over original research documents they say confirm what they always suspected: The study was deeply flawed and unfairly characterized Baby Einstein products.

The university also paid $175,000 toward the couple's legal fees.

To Bill Clark, the files turned over by the school demonstrate "troubling aspects of how it was conceived, funded and publicized."

The university stands behind the research and its findings, as well as how those conclusions were portrayed, said UW spokesman Bob Roseth.

Aigner-Clark, a former English teacher, conceived the Baby Einstein videos, which combined classical music, verse, puppets and shiny objects. The couple, who live outside Denver, shot the first, "Baby Mozart," in their basement. It was released in 1996.

The Clarks have described the videos as "engaging ways to expose babies and their parents to the arts and nature."

But for millions of new parents, the videos also provided 30 minutes to grab a shower or a sandwich with minimum guilt. By the time the Clarks sold Baby Einstein to Disney in 2001, sales had climbed to more than $17 million.

Then in 2007, the Journal of Pediatrics published a study by three UW researchers: Frederick Zimmerman, Dimitri Christakis and Andrew Meltzoff.

Advertisement

"Negative association"

The study reported that among babies between the ages of 8 months and 16 months, every hour spent daily watching videos such as "Brainy Baby" or "Baby Einstein" translated into six to eight fewer words in their vocabularies compared with other children their age.

"This analysis reveals a large negative association between viewing of baby DVDs/videos and vocabulary acquisition in children age 8 to 16 months," the article stated. It added that no other media had any effect, for better or worse.

But included in the materials turned over to Clark are exchanges in which the university's Institutional Review Board scolded Zimmerman for changing the study without notifying anyone, or getting approval. The board at one point directed him to resurvey participating parents, but it later backed off that requirement.

In his response, Zimmerman said the original study, which was to have involved more subjects and included follow-up over a period of months, proved too costly.

Of greater significance, from the Clarks' perspective, was some correspondence from one researcher concerned about how certain results were analyzed. While children 8 months to 16 months who watched baby videos fell behind in vocabulary, the study also found that in children 17 months to 24 months, vocabulary increased and the negative effects evaporated.

In an e-mail to Zimmerman, Meltzoff asked, "What's the notion about how (we're) reconciling the fact that there was an effect on the young kids but it washed out by the time they were 17-24, and we now will be wanting to follow the young kids when they're older?"

Zimmerman responded that he hoped to do a follow-up survey with the same parents.

"This has been a great project and it (will) be a huge payoff in terms of high profile research and promising new research directions," he wrote Meltzoff.

The vocabulary rebound was part of the published report but was downplayed in news releases distributed by the university and Seattle Children's Hospital, where Christakis is on staff.

The researchers — particularly Christakis, whose website describes him as "an international expert on children and media" — told reporters around the country that not only were the videos not going to produce baby Einsteins, they might actually harm children.

Seattle Children's put out a news release that quoted him as saying parents should limit children's exposure to the videos "as much as possible."

"The evidence is mounting that they are of no value and may in fact be harmful," he said.

None of the researchers involved in the study would talk about it now.

Back then, around the country and beyond, headlines screamed that far from cultivating intelligence, Baby Einstein would make children dumber.

The Disney Co. which saw its investment in Baby Einstein potentially swirling the drain, tried to control the damage. In a letter to Mark Emmert, then-president of the University of Washington and now head of the NCAA, Disney chief Robert Iger called the university's releases "misleading, irresponsible and derogatory" and demanded a retraction.

Disney's effort did little

But the effort didn't accomplish much, and fallout from the study endured. The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood asked the Federal Communications Commission to fine Disney for making false claims about Baby Einstein's benefits. By fall of 2009, Disney was offering refunds to dissatisfied customers.

Meanwhile, Bill Clark was simmering.

He contacted the university, demanding he receive the research documents behind the study.

Perceiving that the university was dragging its feet, he just got madder.

At one point, Zimmerman assured a university administrator that the entire brouhaha "will just blow over."

It might have, were it not for a 2009 article in the British newspaper The Guardian. The article convinced Clark that the negative stories wouldn't go away. So, he decided, neither would he.

Rockies relief pitcher John Axford, who hasn't pitched for the team since last Wednesday, was forced to leave spring training camp after his 2-year-old son was bit by a rattlesnake twice in his right foot.

One-day event to run slide down University HillIt's not quite the alternative mode of transportation that Boulder's used to, but, for one day this summer, residents will be able to traverse several city blocks atop inflatable tubes.

DETROIT (AP) — In a story March 27 about a 'Little Syria' exhibit going to Ellis Island, The Associated Press, due to incorrect information from the Arab American National Museum, erroneously reported the date the exhibit will open. Full Story